Israeli presence on Palestinian land 'irreversible'

[bub]

Bub, those settlements are not annexations of land, you merely seem to lack the knowledge that is needed to be able to tell the difference between occupying a land and annexing it.
Out of all of the examples that you've given only East Jerusalem is an annexation of land, and it was annexed in '67.

Thus you haven't even proven me wrong by the slightest, no new land has been annexed since the six-day war in '67.

some colonies won't be destroyed and given back to the palestinians, including very recent ones, so yes we can say they've been annexed.

As for the palestinian part of Jerusalem, no one recognizes it as Israeli, outside of Israel of course.

And please no more personnal attacks.

 

[Apocalypse]

some colonies won't be destroyed and given back to the palestinians, including very recent ones, so yes we can say they've been annexed.

Unless Israel annexes them, they are not annexed.
Annexation is not a natural process buddy. :2razz:

And Israel won't annex them till a final peace agreement is in place, where the Palestinians would be given an equal amount of land from Israeli territories as a trade-off.

 

[bub]

Unless Israel annexes them, they are not annexed.
Annexation is not a natural process buddy. :2razz:

And Israel won't annex them till a final peace agreement is in place, where the Palestinians would be given an equal amount of land from Israeli territories as a trade-off.

De-facto they're annexed since both Israeli and Palestinian leaders agree on the fact that they will never be given back to Palestinians.

But yes so far they're still not "officially annexed", they're just in blatant violation of international law.

 

[Apocalypse]

De-facto they're annexed since both Israeli and Palestinian leaders agree on the fact that they will never be given back to Palestinians.

I'm not sure about the "given back" remark here, as they were taken off from the Jordanian occupation which was taken off from the British occupation etc etc (you get the point), however even such recognition does not make the statement that "Israel has annexed lands even after '67" to be true.

My statement stands, Israel has not annexed even a small piece of land since '67. In fact, it has only withdrawn.

 

[justabubba]

Nope, during, in the six-day war in '67.

As I said, no new land was annexed since the end of the six-day war in '67, and bub's comment merely tells of a great lack of knowledge on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

but you are acknowledging the israeli taking of jerusalem as a consequence of war
just documenting that we agree on that point

 

[bub]

I'm not sure about the "given back" remark here, as they were taken off from the Jordanian occupation which was taken off from the British occupation etc etc (you get the point), however even such recognition does not make the statement that "Israel has annexed lands even after '67" to be true.

It has been granted to Palestinians. It's not important how you call them, no semantic games, you also get the point.

My statement stands, Israel has not annexed even a small piece of land since '67. In fact, it has only withdrawn.

De-facto, they are already annexed since there is a consensus about the fact that (a) they are under Israeli control and (b) they will remain under Israeli control.

 

[Degreez]

De-facto, they are already annexed since there is a consensus about the fact that (a) they are under Israeli control and (b) they will remain under Israeli control.

This the pivotal point that some are just to embarrassed to believe. Israel occupied territory, transfered its population on that territory (war crime) to change the status quo (violation of international law) all the while saying it is all disputable. It's disgusting the way some will make excuses for grave breaches of international law.